CIS Recruiting 2013-14

Relax Wolf13. I'm not attempting to argue anything about fairness, nor am i suggesting that the other two leagues should or shouldn't adopt the rules re: roster size that the AUS has put in place. all i am doing is commenting on what i believe to be some of the consequences of the AUS decision.

It must be noted, however, that the word on the street is that although Saskatchewan and Alberta do throw some big coin at players (i can't speak for the OUA but i am sure it happens as well) UNB, SMU, SFX and even UPEI are known to toss even bigger coin at top players. Logic tells us that you would not have Western Canadian players (and their girlfriends, who mysteriously get scholarships as well) moving out to the East Coast for a few extra shekels. there is big money involved.

If you are suggesting UPEI is one of the schools throwing big money at players, I'd seriously question your sources considering the financial shape UPEI is currently in and has been in for years. There is no way UPEI is outspending Alberta for players.

Also I would assume that rule change in the AUS took a majority of votes to pass, so you can't realistically accuse half the league of doing it. If half of them were doing that they wouldn't have changed the rule.

It must be noted, however, that the word on the street is that although Saskatchewan and Alberta do throw some big coin at players (i can't speak for the OUA but i am sure it happens as well) UNB, SMU, SFX and even UPEI are known to toss even bigger coin at top players. Logic tells us that you would not have Western Canadian players (and their girlfriends, who mysteriously get scholarships as well) moving out to the East Coast for a few extra shekels. there is big money involved.

Long past tired of these insinuations with no fact behind them. Did you hear if from your buddy, whose girlfriend's friend heard it from a hockey player at a bar who was hitting on her and trying to explain why his team wasn't as competitive as an AUS team?

CIS teams all have the same maximum inducement that they can offer an individual hockey (or any sport) recruit: an Athletic Financial Award not to exceed the cost of tuition and fees. If your tuition is more than your competitors, such as Acadia, you can offer more money, but it is still a "salary cap". And they can't offer the full amount to everyone -- just to 70% of a 20-man roster, so 14 guys can be given the max (unless they are Academic All-Canadians, when they don't count against the team cap, but you still can't go over the individual AFA limits).

So if a stud recruit can't get more money from one school than another, what gives? Well, as others have already pointed out, many AUS schools and hockey programs have prioritized the resources they put into their AFA "pool". I don't know if any OUA teams "max out" their hockey AFA's, but most in the AUS come close. When you have more money to distribute, more players get AFAs -- simple math as a result of priority setting.

But, you'd be better off to stop fixating on the money. If all schools have a similar maximum limit for AFAs, then a stud recruit doesn't think about the money. Then it becomes the number one reason players tell me they come to the AUS: to play competitive hockey in a good conference where you have a legitimate chance to play for a national championship AND develop your game so you can get that pro offer after your AUS career (and maybe be the next Joel Ward or Kevin Henderson).

If you are suggesting UPEI is one of the schools throwing big money at players, I'd seriously question your sources considering the financial shape UPEI is currently in and has been in for years. There is no way UPEI is outspending Alberta for players.

Also I would assume that rule change in the AUS took a majority of votes to pass, so you can't realistically accuse half the league of doing it. If half of them were doing that they wouldn't have changed the rule.

One of the reasons that the player cap was instituted - and that a majority of AUS coaches voted to bring it in - was in fact to control costs. It would level the playing field locally, ie. AUS. And even though UNB rallies against it and calls it the “anti UNB” rule (or whatever), fact is UNB will be able to pad its war chest with more gold because they will not have to spend as much. Math is quite simple, outfit 22 skaters with gear, jerseys, tution, books, travel, etc etc or outfit 28. It was as much a cost saving measure for everyone, as it was a stone being thrown in UNB’s direction.

Has anyone ever caught someone in a lie and called them on it? Have you ever had the liar come back at you and get defensive and irritated because you called them out? Liars don’t like to be called liars. Just an observation on life. No real meaning there, just sayin.

the paragraph above was not directed at you Foyle, I had typed that before I read your post. Not trying to start a war.

Last edited by STUTOMMIES: 05-15-2013 at 12:18 PM.
Reason: note to Freddy Foyle

Not going to pretend that I don't believe some coaches might be trying to bend the AFA rules. But it looks like the only hockey program that might have been caught doing that is Dal, and we're still waiting for the CIS to release the results of their investigation. So before anyone casts aspersions towards any other schools with no evidence, why don't they wait until at least we find out what Dal did or didn't do.

STUTommies raises a good point. All the AUS hockey programs WILL save some player expenses with the anti-UNB roster cap (don't fool yourself, I understand every school EXCEPT UNB voted for the cap, and the coaches put their AD's up to it ...). But probably not AFA money. UNB was already close to the limit or at it and will still spend the same, but spread among few less players. I don't see the other schools behaving any different, so they'll see no net savings in AFA spending.

There are very few OUA teams that actively pay their players, and even fewer that pay to the level of the top AUS and Canada West teams.
The teams that do pay should not come as a surprise to anyone: Lakehead certainly pays, and it is likely that they have competition from some of the new programs (with the new business models) such as Carleton and Nipissing.
The Quebec schools have a substantial competitive advantage in that their tuition is capped for Quebec students (I believe it's in the $1500 range), which helps explain why UQTR and Concordia can consistently attract top players from the Q.
One important note: the top academic schools (e.g., Toronto, Queen's, RMC) don't pay their players, and have very limited athletic scholarship money, if any. They actually attract players based on the academic merits of the school.

Just to be a nitpicker, CIS teams don't "pay" their players. They can award them Athletic Financial Awards, similar to NCAA athletic scholarships (but not near as big).

The only time I would use the word "pay" is when the student-athletes have an actual job, like working a hockey school or summer camp on campus.

"Top academic schools" that have limited athletic scholarship money have made that choice themselves. No one is stopping them from investing money in supporting student-athletes but their own policies. Alberta is ranked higher academically internationally than Queen's or RMC and they have no qualms in supporting student athletes. Nor does McGill (maybe not to Alberta levels ...).

One important note: the top academic schools (e.g., Toronto, Queen's, RMC) don't pay their players, and have very limited athletic scholarship money, if any. They actually attract players based on the academic merits of the school.

Couldn't be more wrong about these schools. All these teams want to win and may are there for more hockey reasons and in the case with us, military reasons. We still offer the same perks as other schools. We don't do the AFA thing as our reservists and cadets get money from your hard working tax dollars.

Actually, some CIS teams do pay their players. Some do it more legitimately than others, but it is pay.

And, with all due respect, there is a huge difference between international academic rankings, which are based on the research output of the faculty, and academic entrance standards. RMC has the highest entrance standards of any university in Canada, but its faculty research output is very low, so it doesn't get the merit in the rankings (which heavily favour large comprehensive universities). McGill, Queen's, and Toronto are quite high as well. Alberta, by contrast, offers many programs with very low entrance standards.

Please don't compare the pay that a member of the Canadian Armed Forces gets for completing his training with the pay that a player from (insert school here) gets for spending a couple of hours on the ice teaching kids how to play hockey.

Couldn't be more wrong about these schools. All these teams want to win and may are there for more hockey reasons and in the case with us, military reasons. We still offer the same perks as other schools. We don't do the AFA thing as our reservists and cadets get money from your hard working tax dollars.

So RMC actually pays its players more than anybody!

I believe that most of the innuendo is for under-the-table payments made by "friends of the program". Nobody would have a clue what those would total.

The other inducement would be a "friend of the program" who would offer employment or housing, maybe even post-graduation employment, to players. Nobody would be able to quantify this, either.

Well I live in the fact-based world MiamiHockey, so until you actually have some facts to back your obviously biased opinions, I'm just going to try my best to ignore your ramblings.

As for Holly, he makes very valid points. While most teams, and varsity programs, are always strapped for cash there is no doubt that "friend of programs" organizations (called boosters in the NCAA) are helping out players financially or in-kind. It is impossible to track and difficult to police. Several years ago a friend and co-worker was renting out his basement apartment to a couple of varsity hockey players and their rent money, in cash, was supplied by "friends of the team." No doubt this is happening across the CIS.

Very big, very slow, and not that tough according to bison boys. he checked out Manitoba pretty hard as well.
We thought we had John Neibrandt at the time but he now appears to be heading to u of Regina. But both had mobility issues. We need some big boys though!

Well I live in the fact-based world MiamiHockey, so until you actually have some facts to back your obviously biased opinions, I'm just going to try my best to ignore your ramblings.

I'm curious FreddtFoyle ... what direction do you think I am biased in?

I actually went to RMC and served 12 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I am also alumnus of the University of Alberta, in addition to my 5 years of experience recruiting and coaching CIS hockey.

The simple fact is, RMC hockey players get paid by the Canadian Armed Forces either (1) when they conduct their training as members of the Reserves, or (2) during the year, but they then have a 5-year commitment to serve in the Regular Force. My point was that comparing that "pay" to how other programs pay their players to work at hockey camps is not comparable. If you don't believe me, then I'd encourage you to sign up for Basic Training and find out how much you have to work for that pay.

As a faculty member, I also know how universities operate. Within each university, different programs have different entrance standards. Look at a CIS hockey roster, and see for yourself what programs players are enrolled in. You can make your own inferences, but I can assure you that players enrolled in "General Studies" went through a less rigorous application process than those enrolled in "Pre-Med."

Also, different universities have different willingness to flex their standards for athletes. I know, for a fact, that RMC, Queen's, McGill, and Toronto are four schools with virtually no flexibility on their enrolment standards for athletes.

I'm still not sure what bias I have ... I am hoping that you can enlighten me.

I believe that most of the innuendo is for under-the-table payments made by "friends of the program". Nobody would have a clue what those would total.

The other inducement would be a "friend of the program" who would offer employment or housing, maybe even post-graduation employment, to players. Nobody would be able to quantify this, either.

This is exactly what I am referring to. Of course, nobody knows exactly what money individual players are getting, or who they are getting it from, but the truth is that everybody involved in CIS hockey is aware of this.

One of the best examples I am aware of is a player getting paid in the range of $8000 to work at a kids' hockey camp for 2 weeks. An RMC hockey player in the Reserves could earn in the range of $8000 by spending 9-10 weeks in Army training. Technically, both are "pay for work," but I'd argue that they're not exactly comparable.

Your bias? The holier-than-thou attitude about "top academic schools" and how everyone else pays their players.

Quote:

One important note: the top academic schools (e.g., Toronto, Queen's, RMC) don't pay their players, and have very limited athletic scholarship money, if any. They actually attract players based on the academic merits of the school.

Those schools made a choice not to spend money on athletic scholarships. They can/could afford to (heaven knows they've got more financial resources than schools in the Maritimes dealing with declining demographic-based enrollment issues), but they don't. Because they made that choice, it doesn't make other schools "lesser" because they chose to invest in varsity athletics.

If those same "elite" schools are challenged to get student-athletes in because of their selective admission standards, well, they made that choice too. If other schools have more open standards because they see the function of a provincial university being accessibility to all, and that in turn means it is easier for student-athletes to get into those schools, well so be it. The "non-elite" school hockey programs are going to do their own thing and focus on winning national championships.

And by the way, of course I know RMC is a unique case as a military college and I never brought them into the conversation. Queen's on the other hand? If they want to be a selective-entry university and not spend money on their hockey program, well then they should expect to be noncompetitive.

I'm curious FreddtFoyle ... what direction do you think I am biased in?

I actually went to RMC and served 12 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I am also alumnus of the University of Alberta, in addition to my 5 years of experience recruiting and coaching CIS hockey.

The simple fact is, RMC hockey players get paid by the Canadian Armed Forces either (1) when they conduct their training as members of the Reserves, or (2) during the year, but they then have a 5-year commitment to serve in the Regular Force. My point was that comparing that "pay" to how other programs pay their players to work at hockey camps is not comparable. If you don't believe me, then I'd encourage you to sign up for Basic Training and find out how much you have to work for that pay.

As a faculty member, I also know how universities operate. Within each university, different programs have different entrance standards. Look at a CIS hockey roster, and see for yourself what programs players are enrolled in. You can make your own inferences, but I can assure you that players enrolled in "General Studies" went through a less rigorous application process than those enrolled in "Pre-Med."

Also, different universities have different willingness to flex their standards for athletes. I know, for a fact, that RMC, Queen's, McGill, and Toronto are four schools with virtually no flexibility on their enrolment standards for athletes.

I'm still not sure what bias I have ... I am hoping that you can enlighten me.

Having high admission standards doesn't mean players don't get paid by outside sources. Duke has very high standards. Google Lance Thomas. Duke wasn't involved, but it still happened.

Your bias? The holier-than-thou attitude about "top academic schools" and how everyone else pays their players.

Fair enough. Not my intention, but it is what it is.

I do agree with you, incidentally, with one exception. There are, indeed, legitimate financial awards being given out to athletes based on academic performance (e.g., one school I am familiar with gives their athletes $3000 per year conditional on them maintaining a GPA > 3.0). And, in my opinion, that's exactly how it should be. Not every CIS hockey player needs to work on Bay Street after graduation.

But, let's not kid ourselves, there are schools providing sources of funding outside of that. And those schools, more often than not, are the ones that struggle to attract student-athletes based on the merits of the academic program. That's all I'm saying.

Laurier, who earlier added Okotoks Oilers Alternate captain and former WHL player with Tri-City and Regina Tanner Olstad, add another Okotoks Oiler player in Co-Captain and former Vancouver Giants forward Greg Lamoureux.

Make a new thread for schools who pay and leave this for actual recruiting news and speculation.

For speculation, former Sudbury Wolves and Kitchener Rangers goaltender Joel Vienneau per a Sudbury article has been offered a scholarship at a university in New Brunswick, should no pro offers come up. I imagine the university alluded to is Moncton.

For speculation, former Sudbury Wolves and Kitchener Rangers goaltender Joel Vienneau per a Sudbury article has been offered a scholarship at a university in New Brunswick, should no pro offers come up. I imagine the university alluded to is Moncton.

News to me, but it very well could be; we are in need of a goaltender and I haven't really been asking too many questions recruiting wise of late.

Gregg Drinnan reports that Dylan Willick is being wooed by McGill and UNB. Great player and captain of Kamloops.

He also notes that Brendan Ranford may get a contract with Dallas. Makes sense given that Dallas owner also owns the Blazers. I am also convinced that any son Of a former NHLer will get a special opportunity to play pro. Their dads have a lot of friends in the old boys network known as the NHL.

everyone coming to unb apparently :-) Thus the reason nobody really holds much stock in what is on the boards!